S VASANTHAKUMAR Vs. MOHAMMED ARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS house rent revision petition under Section 46 (1) of the Kar-nataka Rent Act, 1999 is by a purchaser of a tenanted property in respect of which the erstwhile landlord/owner had obtained an ex parte order of eviction against his tenant. The eviction order had been executed, possession taken and the property sold to the present revision petitioner who claims that he has been put in possession pursuant to the purchase of the property.

(2.) THE tenant who had suffered an ex parte eviction order, filed a miscellaneous case for setting aside the ex parte order on the premise that he had not been duly served and a fraud had been played upon him. The Court that had heard the matter, allowed the miscellaneous petition and set aside the eviction and the original petition was restored to file. The tenant later on filed Misc. No. 97 of 1997 for restitution of his possession under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the CPC. In the said miscellaneous petition, an application was also filed for immediate delivery of the possession of the premises under Section 151 of the CPC. The application appears to have been allowed earlier. The present revision petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, had preferred a revision petition before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that revision petition came to be allowed on the ground that the order had been passed without notice to the revision petitioner and accordingly the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to consider the application afresh after hearing the revision petitioner before the Court.

(3.) THE matter having been remanded for the purpose of hearing the interim application which had been filed by the petitioner in Misc. No. 97 of 1997 of immediate re-delivery of possession even during the pendency of the main petition, the Trial Court considering the objections filed by the second respondent and also hearing the second respondent who had claimed that he was in possession of the premises after purchasing the same from the erstwhile owner and that he was not aware of the earlier eviction proceedings and the alleged dispossession, again allowed the application as per the impugned order dated 17-8-2002. It is aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition is filed.